Poll: Americans Favor Bush Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 6-9.

The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.

Among those who felt strongly either way, 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.

"The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House."

Impeachment Supported by Majorities of Many Groups

Responses varied by political party affiliation: 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans.

Responses also varied by age and income. Solid majorities of those under age 55 (54%), as well as those with household incomes below $50,000 (57%), support impeachment.

Majorities favored impeachment in the Northeast (53%), West (51%), and even the South (50%).

Support for Impeachment Surged Since June

The Ipsos poll shows a dramatic transformation in support for Bush's impeachment since late June. (This is only the second poll that has asked Americans about their support for impeaching Bush in 2005, despite his record-low approval ratings.) The Zogby poll conducted June 27-29 of 905 likely voters found that 42% agreed and 50% disagreed with a statement virtually identical to the one used by Ipsos Public Affairs. (see footnote below)

Ipsos 10/8-9

Zogby 6/27-29

Net Change

Support Impeachment

50%

42%

+8%

Oppose Impeachment

44%

50%

-6%

Impeachment Margin

+6%

-8%

+14%

After the June poll, pollster John Zogby told the Washington Post that support for impeachment "was much higher than I expected." At the time, impeachment supporters trailed opponents by 8%. Now supporters outnumber opponents by 6%, a remarkable shift of 14%.

Support for Clinton Impeachment Was Much Lower

In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton (http://democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls). Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition.

Impeachment Support is Closely Related to Belief that Bush Lied about Iraq

Both the Ipsos and Zogby polls asked about support for impeachment if Bush lied about the reasons for war, rather than asking simply about support for impeachment. Pollsters predict that asking simply about impeachment without any context would produce a large number of "I don't know" responses. However, this may understate the percentage of Americans who favor Bush's impeachment for other reasons, such as his slow response to Hurricane Katrina, his policy on torture, soaring gasoline prices, or other concerns.

Other polls show a majority of U.S. adults believe that Bush did in fact lie about the reasons for war. A June 23-26 ABC/Washington Post poll found 52% of Americans believe the Bush administration "deliberately misled the public before the war," and 57% say the Bush administration "intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."

The strong support for impeachment found in this poll is especially surprising because the views of impeachment supporters are entirely absent from the broadcast and print media, and can only be found on the Internet and in street protests, including the large anti-war rally in Washington on September 24.

The lack of coverage of impeachment support is due in part to the fact that not a single Democrat in Congress has called for impeachment, despite considerable grassroots activism by groups like Democrats.com (http://democrats.com/impeach).

"We will, no doubt, see an increase in activism following this poll," said David Swanson, co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org. "But will we see an increase in media coverage? The media are waiting for action in Congress. Apparently it's easier to find and interview one of the 535 members of Congress than it is to locate a representative of the half of the country that wants the President impeached if he lied about the war. The media already accepts that Bush did lie about the war. We know this because so many editors and pundits told us that the Downing Street Memo was 'old news.' What we need now is journalism befitting a democracy, journalism that goes out and asks people what they really think about their government, especially George Bush."

The passion of impeachment supporters is directly responsible for the new poll commissioned by After Downing Street. After the Zogby poll in June, activists led by Democrats.com urged all of the major polling organizations to include an impeachment question in their upcoming polls. But none of the polling organizations were willing to do so for free, so on September 30, AfterDowningStreet.org posted a request for donations to fund paid polls (http://afterdowningstreet.org/polling). As of October 10, 330 individuals had contributed $8,919 in small donations averaging $27 each.

AfterDowningStreet.org has commissioned a second poll which is expected soon, and will continue to urge all polling organizations to include the impeachment question in their regular polls. If they do not, AfterDowningStreet.org will continue to commission regular impeachment polls.

Footnotes:

1. AfterDowningStreet.org is a rapidly growing coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups that was created on May 26, 2005, following the publication of the Downing Street Memos in London's Sunday Times on May 1. The coalition is urging Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war.

3. Zogby asked: "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him through impeachment." Here are complete tables from Zogby.

4. Pollsters have offered various reasons for refusing to poll on impeachment. For example, Gallup said it would do so "if, and when, there is some discussion of that possibility by congressional leaders, and/or if commentators begin discussing it in the news media."

5. The After Downing Street Coalition hired Ipsos to do this poll. Ipsos did not sponsor the poll, but was very helpful, cooperative, and professional. Please do NOT complain to them that they did not do the poll for free. If you feel you must communicate with them, please thank them for being helpful.

Comments

So it is not enough to change party control in 2006. Those candidates who get elected must be as determined and forthright as Paul Hackett in Ohio. It doesn't matter what party they belong to. What matters is that people need to step forward who are willing to speak out without mincing words. We need to put forward candidates who will unequivocally run against business-as-usual, and take over the Congress with a MANDATE to impeach Bush.

There is a strategy professed by this blog that DOES care about which party one belongs to. People who are Democrats need to proclaim it.

I understand competing strategies –which have failed. I understand those who truly feel they agree with a bit from both parties –though much of that can break the Democratic way if we get back on message.

We are Americans first. We can all agree on that, but we must build the Democratic Party in order to bring Americanism back into politics. People have dabbled with competing strategies but I see no more effective way than in building on what the Democratic Party has been.

Your words speak of getting off the fence yet you remain an Independent. If there is something in the Democratic platform this blog professes, that you disagree with so much that Independent needs to be your moniker, then I would ask that you tell us what it is so we can discuss it.

I couldn't disagree with you more. It DOES matter which Party elected candidates belong to, and the more Democrats, the better.

At present, there is no such thing as a principled Republican politician, and you "Independents" are deluding yourselves if you think otherwise. Until we Democrats can level the playing field, and return this nation to a healthy two-party political system, there is no room for fence-sitters. Third-party supporters are little more than spoilers, and can not produce viable national candidates -- they can only take away votes from other candidates.

Having said that, we are also intent on cleaning up our own internal mess, otherwise known as the DLC. They are in cahoots with the neocons, and have nothing in common with traditional Democrats. It was traditional fiscally conservative and socially liberal middle-Americans who saw us through the turmoil of two World Wars, and the (Republican caused) Great Depression. We need to return to the values of FDR and the New Deal.

Being an "Independent" is being a part of the problem. If you want to be a part of the solution, and earn the right to advise ANY political Party, then choose a side and quit hiding behind a neutral label.

Money clumps. The populace congeals around seeds; either ideals, or facts, or charismatic personalities. One can build nothing without analysis, and later, a somewhat “soft” synthesis. By soft I mean that only much later can certain elements of a system be given concreteness through context with the whole –much like a dictionary. If you take the time to read the blog you will see that we wholeheartedly see Americans as brothers.

This is NOT about US and THEM, Democrats and Americans. This is about resting power from a Nazi-Lite regime, with full recognition that pomp and ceremony move humans as much as waxing cerebrally. No place in my posts do I encourage Democrats ruling this Nation. I want governance. You might want to rethink what that will take.

Party Labels, as you so easily dismiss, are important Strategically and otherwise, and you are not above the fray. What do you believe? Suppose these where the party platforms:

Republican: -For crushing the heads of all puppies.
Democrats: -Against crushing the heads of all puppies.

Would you be willing to take a stand then? Now I understand the above is academic and the world is complex. I allude to that above. Still, here is one thing I, as a Democrat, hope to direct the party into (both rhetorically and ideologically):

-Republicans break monopolies in order to establish Aristocracy.

-Democrats do NOTHING different in kind, only degree. Democrats break monopolies in order to establish an expansive middle class.

Here is the deal: There is some merit in Americans deciding, by majority, how they wish to be governed. This bifurcates the electorate. A and B. Or if you wish R and D. Even if you would define things differently by running from the “label”, you weaken the case for the very things you believe. So I ask again: What in the Democratic Platform proposed by this blog do you disagree with? Also, would you be an Independent during a Nazi takeover, or are there extremes to which you recognize the need for a counter pomp and ceremony?

EDIT: I guess you’ve been thrown overboard whilst I composed this response.

At this point in time, we need to get as many Republicans OUT of office as possible, in order to send a strong message that their ideology, i.e., Bush's War on the Poor, is not acceptable. Furthermore, that Republican Party chicanery, deceit, and bully tactics will not be tolerated. That tax cuts for the wealthy just doesn't "cut it" for the rest of us. That the Estate Tax only applies to people who have more money than God and should stay. That education, healthcare, and good-paying American jobs are about as essential to the core American Dream as it gets, and Republican ideology has taken us far, far away. That Social Security is a necessary and good thing, and can't be tampered with.

That's why we need to clean house and get rid of as many Republicans as we can. They need to be taught a lesson. They need to know that they have to put their own house in order before we let them back into ours.

As far as other Parties, I find nothing wrong with encouraging Green, Independents, and members of other Parties to join with Progressives in the Democratic Party. I doubt that this country is ready to seriously consider electing one of their candidates, though, only because of unfair campaigning practices, which I would like to see changed.

We need public financing of campaigns, which would eliminate most fraud and deceit. All candidates from all parties should be able to have the same air time, and participate in all debates. But this country will need a leader who will be willing to make that a priority, and it won't happen in 2006 or even 2008.

So I would encourage people of other Parties to join with the Democrats in a united effort to rid the country of Republicans in 2006 and 2008.

But there remains the problem of the centrist Democrats, like Lieberman and Clinton, and the more progressive Democrats, like Edwards, and maybe even Gore. I'd personally like to see a Gore/Edwards ticket. I think they'd make a good team. I would not like to see Hillary Clinton run, because I don't trust her. She's a politician's politician - she's Republican-lite. She supports the Iraq War, and she's too pro-business. She's no Barbara Boxer, whom I would consider a progressive, but without enough clout to get elected.

I'd throw my hat in the ring for Gore/Edwards. Both have been through the worst campaigns that I can remember. Both know what to expect. Both could raise money. Both have followers, possibly more than Hillary, I believe.

Democrats need to offer Americans a mix of the New Deal and the American Dream. Social Security, Education, Healthcare (universal), and Jobs. Maybe throw in affordable housing. THAT's the winning message, I believe.

Values are important, yes. But Democrats need to make Americans see that they don't have to compromise their values by voting Democrat.

It will take Democrats, Greens, Independents & others working together to get rid of the Republican plague.

Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "The rich are too poor, and the poor are too rich."

I think that Edwards and Gore are our best chance too. I hope now that Gore has said he won't run, we can rally behind Edwards. His Progressive ideas are just what we need. He is a self made millionaire, and I believe he can still remember how it is to be normal. He is dedicated to his family and making this country better for all families, not just the top 2% of which he is a part. Edwards is our best bet right now, and should be the nominee. Taking the House and Senate in 06 are the priorities now. I have been so pleased that Edwards has been speaking out so maybe he will run. If he does he has my support period.

I am certain this is one of the reasons that the current mal-administration chose Cheney and ramped up the crooks in the house - so that the prospect of getting rid of one would merely lead to yet another, worse one in power.

This mal-administration is like a loaded PEZ dispenser. Pop one off and another comes to the fore.

So, the impeachment calls of Americans is good to hear, but I can only hope that Americans also recognize that we have a long line of criminals and liars to deal with, not just one at the top.

Impeachment means removing all of them, and starting over. Would this be the first time America has had a special election? Perhaps. It would be a very healthy thing to do and I am certain the world community would be very much behind it.

So let's modify the call for impeachment to include the entire power structure. Otherwise we are left with yet another piece of PEZ.

The whole regime must be removed. We need to start with Bush and Cheney. One cannot be impeached without the other. They are one and the same and only removing one of them would be like drilling out half a cavity. The remaining decay would eventually eat up the rest of the tooth.

Hey everyone. Check out this website: www.worldcantwait.org - If you are truly concerned with removing this regime, let the rest of the world know. It's time for a revolution because we can't sit around waiting for the press or congress to do their jobs. When polls are showing that 50% of the country would favor impeachment if King George Lied and more than 50% of the country believe he lied and still not even the slightest mention of the floors of congress or the nightly news of the very word "impeachment", it must become clear to everyone who cares at all that we can no longer wait around for our "knight in shining armor" to come save us. It just simply is not going to happen. We need to save ourselves and hit the streets on Nov. 2nd

I agree that we need to flush both Bush and Cheney out. They are co-conspirators with no respect for or love of the American people who don't qualify as "Haves or Have Mores". The harm that they do to us everyday makes it just that much harder for us to ever try to return to our roots. It seems to me here that we are seeing an increasing number of new members who are expressing their commitment to reform. The DLC has to decide if it is part of the problem or part of the solution. Their time to get engaged is growing short since we will have to proceed without them if they don't wake up and refind their Democratic heritage. The sheer sight of Bush pretending to participate in construction of a house yesterday is more heinous to me than any flag burning. He is laughing at the plight of the real people in America. He has only contempt for us and sees us only as cannon fodder. Our lives are real, not photo ops in which we make happy faces and then jet off to Camp David or Club Crawford. We have every right to be angry and to demand justice. Hillary, John, and company make a stand or stand aside.

While I'd love to see impeachment yesterday, I tend to agree that it's doomed to fail so long as Repubs are in the majority.

But this isn't stopping members from mentioning the poll on the floor, and then taking the high road ala: "This president's approval is at a historic low, and some polls are even calling for impeachment. While this side of the isle is not looking down that road right now, this is a wake up call coming from the electorate, so y'all better play ball."

Could at least get the topic into the media, and give the Dems some leverage in dealing with Repubs between now and election time.

Am I nuts?

UPDATE: OK, regardless of whether or not I'm nuts, I sent a letter to Kucinich since I live half of the year in Ohio. Randi Rhodes mentioned the congressional black caucus and Conyers. Anybody have a relationship with these folks, or should I take it upon myself to do that as well?

AMERICAN PLUTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT with Corrupt money dominated Elections.

They Give AID and COMFORT to the ENEMIES of DEMOCRACY,

The CORRUPTION of the ELECTION PROCESS,

the JUXTAPOSED Crime of NOT FIXING the ELECTION PROCESS...

And with SECRECY and the EXCLUSION of the GOVERNED,

WE THE PEOPLE of UNITED STATES of AMERICA,

With their combined WEALTH.

____________________________

'High-Treason' painting juxtaposes historical and contemporary reality and visually records the usurpation of US democracy [vis a vi a corrupt election] and challenges the illegitimate handing over of power to the stooges and lackeys that control the modern day slave culture of credit and debt… Steven Bayless ( 2002 )

AMERICAN PLUTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT with Corrupt money dominated Elections.

They Give AID and COMFORT to the ENEMIES of DEMOCRACY,

The CORRUPTION of the ELECTION PROCESS,

the JUXTAPOSED Crime of NOT FIXING the ELECTION PROCESS...

And with SECRECY and the EXCLUSION of the GOVERNED,

WE THE PEOPLE of UNITED STATES of AMERICA,

With their combined WEALTH.

____________________________

'High-Treason' painting juxtaposes historical and contemporary reality and visually records the usurpation of US democracy [vis a vi a corrupt election] and challenges the illegitimate handing over of power to the stooges and lackeys that control the modern day slave culture of credit and debt… Steven Bayless ( 2002 )

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With the president's job approval at its lowest ever, the White House said on Tuesday [10-18] George W. Bush was not driven by public opinion polls and dismissed them as "something Washington gets caught up in."

Bush's job approval rating fell to an all-time low of 39 percent in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll published on Monday in the wake of the government's sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina, high gas prices, continued fighting in Iraq and controversy over his nomination of White House lawyer Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The president's focused on moving forward on our agenda," spokesman Scott McClellan said. "He doesn't get caught up in the weekly poll numbers."

The numbers have steadily declined in all polls -- at least one put Bush's job approval at 37 percent -- since he was sworn in for a second term in January.

"When you are a leader you can't be driven by polls," McClellan said.

Bush was working on making sure the United States succeeded in Iraq so American troops could come home, addressing high gas prices, creating jobs, and winning the war on terror, McClellan said.

Let's face it -- Dubya is correct. This administration has been open about its disdain for public opinion, and does not care what the average American thinks. They only care what their contributors think, and about their own personal interests.

Dubya has repeatedly said that the "only poll that counts, happens on election day." That is true, and unless we can trump that "poll" by impeachment, or win back Congress, they have three more years to do as they damn please.

So let's use public opinion to our advantage in 2006 and 2008, and take back America. And, I can't say it often enough: focus on the solution -- not the problem.

in this regard that gets me is after all of this Scott then repeates over and over "The American people" this and "The American people" that every day. He has no idea what the American people think, and as you state the WH doesn't care, but he parrots that phrase. I think that the WH actually believes that they can convince us that no matter what we or our close associates thing, the rest of America thinks what the WH wants them to think. Deny the polls and keep telling us that we do too like it.

Everyone is talking about impeachment and etc., but I haven't seen anyone post the way to do it. Many say "crimes" have been committed - so here goes.

Title 18 of the United States Code* calls for criminal penalties for defrauding the United States. I believe the Bush Administration et al has done just that concerning the WMD allegation in Iraq.
Let me give you an example: I call the police and tell them someone told me my neighbor, who I don’t like very much, has a Meth Lab in his home. The police raid my neighbors home based on my allegation. They find nothing. Have I committed an offense? Substitute the words in my example – Meth Lab with WMD’s and neighbor with Iraq. Bush and his band of merry men and women attacked another nation of the unsubstantiated verbal evidence of an Iraqi dissident. If you believe I should be charged or at least investigated, then you believe Bush and company should be charged and or investigated. There is plenty of evidence and testimony to lend credence to the notion the Administration should have had SOME doubts as to the credibility of the WMD charge. Most Senators and Congressman are attorneys and there are plenty of them blowing hot air and none taking action. Wouldn’t this be a prudent action? There are plenty of other sections under Title 18 USC

Which could be applied to the false WMD allegation. We have to encourage our Senators and Congressman to charge those in the Administration with this fraud.
If we don’t, we will endure another 3years of the Bush dictatorship and worse than that allow international criminals to go free.

*USC Title 18 - Section 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense
against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any
agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of
such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object
of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such
conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for
such misdemeanor.

So there you have it - No more hot air - The problem is getting a Senator or Congressman to file. http://www.oilwars.com
Cheers
JackTheBearTexas

Jack the Bear: I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that unfortunately these sections only apply to financial fraud. However, I know of no good reason why this gang can't be sued. After all, if they put out bogus information to justify the invasion of Iraq--and we all know they did--they are responsible for every death and injury that resulted. I would love to see a suit. A class action would be fun.